So maybe it’s genuine.

Or the admin is bored.

Or the admin got this sent randomly from someone. Maybe an FSB operative, or maybe a convincing troll, or Russian or Ukrainian or frankly any intelligence service.

It’s completely unknowable. Any heuristics for determining authenticity go out the window, because they would be used by a faker too.

Hell, even concluding it’s a fake is dangerous, because what if that’s the intention? Next thing you might be wondering if this is reverse psychology and trying to conclude things from something that really has no informational content to the lay user.

This is the case with most journalism, no?

Here we have a well respected journalist with a solid track record claiming that they trust their source.

Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true, but certainly lends credibility.

It is similar.

I wouldn’t take at face value a journalist saying “this is what an FSB operative says, trust me”. Leaks from “senior anonymous official” are dozen a penny. Journalists typically indicate how they verified the provenance of leaks they publish, and hopefully keep the unverifiable stuff off their pages.

As for the guy’s track record... this sounds like a niche source. Some fairly small slither of the population can indeed infer more by knowing this guy well, for everyone else is “trust me he’s good”. Certainly not informative to me.

In the end this is a really empty criticism. Anyone with half a brain understands that journalism tends to come with these caveats.